The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1887-04-01
How Shall We vote on the Amend
mout

AASv8b
ED. TINES: the issue Of March
I6, of the Owosso Press. l find an
article signed "Citizen" under the
above headlines, so full of mlsstate.
ments and otherwise misleading that
| ask space in your columns for a
reply. In the first place "Citizen"
makes il very plain he is opposed to
the amendment, perhaps because he
has never been convinced that che
did not Ike the taste of the stuff"
Citizen says, "Prior to 1875 we
had prohibitory law and a prohibit
tory clause in our constitution stronger
in all respects than the one now pro
posed;" that 1--WE had tested them for
twenty years and found them in every
wa, wanting" Not so, Citizen. From
1850 to 1875 We simply had clause
in our constitution torbidding license.
but in 1875 ingenuity and the Su
preme Court lodged that with the
present tax laws and the no license
clause (worlhless), was stricken from
the constitution. In 1855 the legisla
ture passed law prohibiting the sale
of any spirituous or intoxicating
liquors as a beverage, and just two
years later, in 1857 (not twenty), so
amended it as to permit the sale of
cider, beer and wine, and also re
pealed section 6, restoring the right of
property held contraband land section
7, known as the search and seizure"
clause, which changes made said law,
never very strong almost as worthless,
as temperance measure, as the
present tax law, land under the amend
ed law beer saloons sprang up all
over our land. After 1857 then, all
must see, we had law only prohibi
tory in name and not In spirit, and
Citizen need not be a lawyer to see
that SAID changes in the statute of
1855 were very nearly in effect the
repeal of the whole of the prohibitory
law, thus giving but two years in
which to try prohibition. Hence
Citizens "dead letter" talk and fig
lres showing number OF saloons just
before and just after the passage of
the tax law of 1875 have no bearing
on the subject. The change was not
from prohibition to tax, as the pro-
hibitory statute was practically de-
'troyed in 1857. 1t was simply the
enactment of the statute to give the
liquor traffic legal standing, and
the Public Leader of Detroit, organ
Of the liquor dealers, declared the
liquor trade had secured its adoption.
1t was done in the interest of the
saloon and not in the interest of tenn
perance, and it is claimed by the
most careful observers that the de
crease in the number of saloons during
that year was as much the result of
the "Red Ribbon" movement as Of
The tax law, and even if the number
Of saloons was decreased, does Citi-
zen think it was any more difficult
for the would be drinker with cash in
his pocket, to get as much liquor as
he chose'
We tried prohibition two years,
from 1855 to 1857, and have now
tried the present tax regulation law
twelve years, from 1875 to 1887. The
first year of the tax law Citizen says
we had 1904 saloons, and the liquor
league documents now in circulation,
against the amendment, say we have
at present, "nearly 5000 that will
close up il prohibition prevails" If
that is so, and believe it, then Ger.
tainly "all good temperance men will
be glad of that" and all good TEN.
perance men can afford to vote
amendment Yes"
"Citizen" claims that under the tax
law the rumsellers have from their
pockets paid "over five million dollars
Of taxes and that it lifts SO much of
the burden from the shoulders of
other citizens"
! make no issue of the amount they
have paid, but it comes not f,om them
but through them from the county tax
who support the saloon
and if cit lifts the burden from the
shoulders of other citizens" their
taxes should and would be lighter.
In 1875 the State levied a tax S5aI,-
aga. In 1879 our State taxss jumped
to $I,I53,oo6 and in 1885, after en-.
loving this "revenue" for ten years